Support NeoGAF

[Coulomb_Barrier]

Wasn't aware of that, but, despite that, there's no guarantee that AMD will deliver on their promises that it'll get better with patches. For all we know, those could end up being just a minor improvement.

If they end up improving alot, that'll be good for everyone, especially since Intel does need competition, but until then, Ryzen can't really be recommended for those focused on gaming based on promises, in my opinion.

Yeah well I'd agree. Obviously there are also other uses for a CPU outside of gaming.

It's better to let the platform mature and work out the kinks. If you've got the luxury of time, waiting for Skylake-X/Kaby-X or even Coffee Lake or Zen 2 is always an option. Hedging your bets on supposed unused potential is always risky, especially when we're talking of devs utilizing a GPU/CPU that's not from the market leader. Fiji had lots of potential too.

Agree, point was, let's try not to assume the potential isn't there, it seems obvious to me there is something holding them back when you look at how underutilised the cores and SMT are with some games. For whatever reason, be it compatibility with the Windows scheduler, bugs or the need for new motherboard BIOS.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

Yeah well I'd agree. Obviously there are also other uses for a CPU outside of gaming.



Agree, point was, let's try not to assume the potential isn't there, it seems obvious to me there is something holding them back when you look at how underutilised the cores and SMT are with some games. For whatever reason, be it compatibility with the Windows scheduler, bugs or the need for new motherboard BIOS.

Ryzen is (likely) only to get better with time. That's the best news it has going for it.

Also people need to realize that the 1800X and the 1700X are not intended to compete with the 7700K. They are intended to compete with the 6800K, the 6850K and 6900K.

The 1600X and 1500X are going to be competing with the 7700K in terms of value and bang for the buck. In terms of pure speed where single cores speed matters yes Kaby Lake will still come out ahead, but it will still be $100 more. Assuming of course Intel doesn't do a price drop, which I believe they will do.

 

[FLAguy954]

Yes but look at the details. The Skylake and Kaby Lake CPUs are almost at max load when running these types of games (see my above post) whereas the Ryzen is only at 50% load on all its cores in GTA5. So whereas Kaby Lake and SL won't get much faster, there is a large amount of headroom left with the Ryzens.

That's made somewhat irrelevant when you consider that Kaby Lake and Skylake i7s can overclock to an average of 4.5-5 GHz, which also affords them additional performance headroom.

 

[CaLe]

I assume that if I don't plan to only game , the 1800X is still recommended, regardless of the supposed untapped potential ? I'm talking about coding, photoshop, etc.

 

[Datschge]

I assume that if I don't plan to only game , the 1800X is still recommended, regardless of the supposed untapped potential ? I'm talking about coding, photoshop, etc.

Yes. It's surprisingly efficient in embarrassingly parallel workloads beating out much more expensive chips. Though you might prefer the 1700 for the best bang for the buck as the performance difference between the three available options is smaller than the price.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

That's made somewhat irrelevant when you consider that Kaby Lake and Skylake i7s can overclock to an average of 4.5-5 GHz, which also affords them additional performance headroom.

No this is a misconception I see often.

The Kabylake 7700K's turbo clock is already a very high 4.5Ghz out of the box. There isn't much headroom for overclocking actually, as the average overclock seems to be 4.9Ghz (5ghz is not a guarantee). So you get 400Mhz at best on top.The Skylake 6700K has less overclock potential but also starts from a lower turbo clock out of the box.

The 1800X's turbo is 4Ghz but you get realistically 4.1Ghz with XFR on. Do the benchmarks again with +100Mhz on the Ryzen and +400Mhz on the Kaby and you are not going to see a huge difference.

 

[CaLe]

Yes. It's surprisingly efficient in embarrassingly parallel workloads beating out much more expensive chips. Though you might prefer the 1700 for the best bang for the buck as the performance difference between the three available options is smaller than the price.

Perfect, thanks. How easy is it to overclock the 1700 and what's the max frequency reached using a decent cooler ?

 

[Sir Abacus]

No this is a misconception I see often.

The Kabylake 7700K's turbo clock is already a very high 4.5Ghz out of the box. There isn't much headroom for overclocking actually, as the average overclock seems to be 4.9Ghz (5ghz is not a guarantee). So you get 400Mhz at best on top.The Skylake 6700K has less overclock potential but also starts from a lower turbo clock out of the box.

The 1800X's turbo is 4Ghz but you get realistically 4.1Ghz with XFR on. Do the benchmarks again with +100Mhz on the Ryzen and +400Mhz on the Kaby and you are not going to see a huge difference.

You're comparing an 8 core overclock speed with single core (two thread) XFR speed.

People are struggling to get 4GHz with full 8 core overclocks.

 

[Datschge]

Perfect, thanks. How easy is it to overclock the 1700 and what's the max frequency reached using a decent cooler ?

The official turbo frequency is 3.7GHz (vs 3.8 for 1700X and 4.0 for 1800X, base frequency is 3.0, 3.4 and 3.6 respectively). XFR (used automatically if the cooler offer enough headroom) adds 50MHz (vs 100MHz for X models). 1700 can be manually overclocked further (needs B350 or X370 mainboards) and for all Ryzen chips 4.0-4.1GHz seems to be the upper limit (power consumption and heat increases unproportionally after that, if not before already). There is a chance that 1700 chips are binned to overclock less well, though so far small OC seems easily attainable.

Here is an OC example with 1700 on B350 (e.g. frequency with stock cooler OCd up to 3.7GHz): https://hardforum.com/threads/ryzen-7-1700-b350-overclocking-tidbits.1926296/

Edit: Hm, should mention the caveat that enabling OC disables XFR and turbo frequency (which is per core) so single threaded performance is harder to improve through OC on a 1700. See also: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

You're comparing an 8 core overclock speed with single core (two thread) XFR speed.

People are struggling to get 4GHz with full 8 core overclocks

4.1Ghz seems an average overclock on the 1800X from what I've read.

 

[Paragon]

Yes but look at the details. The Skylake and Kaby Lake CPUs are almost at max load when running these types of games (see my above post) whereas the Ryzen is only at 50% load on all its cores in GTA5. So whereas Kaby Lake and SL won't get much faster, there is a large amount of headroom left with the Ryzens.

Full utilization of the hardware is a great thing.
There are many potential reasons that Ryzen is not being fully utilized, and there may be reasons beyond 'bad optimization' behind it.

For example, my current system is a GTX 1070 paired with a 2500K at 4.5GHz.
It shouldn't be hard for games to fully utilize that CPU as it only has four cores/threads.
However what I see in some games is that CPU usage only has to reach about 80-85% on one of the cores for it to behave as though there is a CPU bottleneck. (GPU utilization and framerate drop)
Now I don't have an explanation for what is happening there, but I suspect it's a bandwidth/latency problem, and that faster RAM would be the solution. I'm not going to spend money on really fast DDR3 at this point though.

We've already seen that some games like The Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 greatly benefit from faster RAM.
What I haven't seen is how that bottleneck manifests itself. I'm willing to bet that it looks like the cores are being under-utilized while still exhibiting "CPU bottleneck" behaviors.

So why am I bringing this up?
Well Ryzen officially only supports DDR4-2666, and people are struggling to overclock past 3000MHz - even on boards that are supposed to support "3200MHz+"
So the issue might be memory speed/bandwidth or some other problem with the architecture preventing the CPU from being fully utilized, and not "bad optimization".

But there are some tests which have shown that Ryzen did not benefit from memory speeds faster than 2666MHz at all - while we know that Intel CPUs improve all the way up to 4266MHz.
Now it could just be those tests, but it may also suggest an architectural limitation rather than the issue being that the platform can't support really high DDR4 speeds.


Now I do think that performance of Ryzen is going to improve over time - especially if the things people are speculating about how Windows is currently managing the CPU cores/threads/cache are correct - but it would not be smart to buy one now because it 'has a lot of potential'.
Older games/software aren't going to be patched to support it, and that potential may never be realized. It may require hardware revisions to work around some of these issues.

I've seen some people say that their FX8350 purchase was justified because games are finally starting to benefit from 8 cores.
The reality is that those people have been using an under-performing CPU for the past five years that is only just now starting to be fully utilized - and at this point taking advantage of all those cores doesn't really matter because the CPU is still too slow to run them well.
I'm not saying that is going to be true for Ryzen, but that's what buying 'potential' can result in.

The ideal situation would be that they hold back the R5 CPUs until they work out some of the kinks, and launch them in a much stronger position than the R7 CPUs did.

4.1Ghz seems an average overclock on the 1800X from what I've read.

You're going to have to provide sources for that - not just that one 'golden sample' CPU managed to achieve it.
Everything I've seen suggests that even 4GHz on all cores is a challenge for most of these CPUs.
Even AMD's own demo crashed when they tried to show an 1800X at 4.1GHz on all cores using watercooling.

 

[ethomaz]

Perfect, thanks. How easy is it to overclock the 1700 and what's the max frequency reached using a decent cooler ?

The turbo clock is already close to limit of the process for these CPUs... so don't expect more than 100-200Mhz over with air.

4.1Ghz seems an average overclock on the 1800X from what I've read.

Not with air... you will really be luck to cross 4.0Ghz.

 

[brain_stew]

The turbo clock is already close to limit of the process for these CPUs... so don't expect more than 100-200Mhz over with air.

The all core turbo of the 1700 seems to be closer to 3.2ghz. The 3.8-3.9ghz overclocks that look to be possible on air are therefore much more than 100-200mhz.

 

[ethomaz]

The all core turbo of the 1700 seems to be closer to 3.2ghz. The 3.8-3.9ghz overclocks that look to be possible on air are therefore much more than 100-200mhz.

AMD says turbo reached 3.7Ghz.

So yes... 100-200Mhz over it... that is what I said.

I understand why AMD choose these high clocks close to limit... they needed it to be competitive. They didn't have the choice to play safe with 2.5-3.0Ghz clocks.

 

[brain_stew]

AMD says turbo reached 3.7Ghz.

So yes... 100-200Mhz over it... that is what I said.

That's single core turbo, when running a single threaded benchmark, not all core turbo. Hardly comparable to clocking all cores to 3.8-3.9ghz. There's significant gains to be had by overclocking the 1700.

 

[ethomaz]

That's single core turbo, when running a single threaded benchmark, not all core turbo. Hardly comparable to clocking all cores to 3.8-3.9ghz. There's significant gains to be had by overclocking the 1700.

That didn't change what I said lol

100-200Mhz over turbo clock... that is it with air.

I don't understand what are you defending...

 

[Sqrt_minus_one]

It really depends on what you want to accomplish with the tests. You can do testing in non-demanding areas and get high numbers and that might be 90% of how one might spend gaming, but once you get to the 10% that result won't be useful. That's why it's better to just take the most demanding area of a game and test that, and this might be different for GPU and CPU.

Take for example ROTTR Geothermal Valley, which is highly CPU bound in the village, and highly GPU bound right below the village in the forest. You could do a 2 min run through both and get an average, but that result would not really give you a very good description of the performance since it could be considerably off in both cases depending on the hardware bottleneck. It's important to disclose what sort of benchmark scene is used because of this reason. A 30s bench through the village gives a better indication of what sort of performance benefits one might get from a 7700K over a 1700 in that situation.

A frametime graph with video like DF does is really the best way.

Agree completely - especially with the bolded.

The issue I was hoping to resolve are those like the Watch Dogs 2 one where Computerbase has one ranking of the processors which is in opposition to 2 or 3 other sites. I am left wondering if the other sites simply picked a poor area which does not stress the CPU that much or Computerbase chose poorly.

Two things that I like about DF videos is that they show where they are testing and at least in The Witcher 3 they choose 2 different stressful areas - Novigrad and the Swamp.

With respect to WD2 it might just be that the game prioritises core count in one section and Single thread perf in another.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

So why am I bringing this up?
Well Ryzen officially only supports DDR4-2666, and people are struggling to overclock past 3000MHz - even on boards that are supposed to support "3200MHz+"
So the issue might be memory speed/bandwidth or some other problem with the architecture preventing the CPU from being fully utilized, and not "bad optimization".

But there are some tests which have shown that Ryzen did not benefit from memory speeds faster than 2666MHz at all - while we know that Intel CPUs improve all the way up to 4266MHz.
Now it could just be those tests, but it may also suggest an architectural limitation rather than the issue being that the platform can't support really high DDR4 speeds.


Now I do think that performance of Ryzen is going to improve over time - especially if the things people are speculating about how Windows is currently managing the CPU cores/threads/cache are correct - but it would not be smart to buy one now because it 'has a lot of potential'.
Older games/software aren't going to be patched to support it, and that potential may never be realized. It may require hardware revisions to work around some of these issues.

I've seen some people say that their FX8350 purchase was justified because games are finally starting to benefit from 8 cores.
The reality is that those people have been using an under-performing CPU for the past five years that is only just now starting to be fully utilized - and at this point taking advantage of all those cores doesn't really matter because the CPU is still too slow to run them well.
I'm not saying that is going to be true for Ryzen, but that's what buying 'potential' can result in.

The ideal situation would be that they hold back the R5 CPUs until they work out some of the kinks, and launch them in a much stronger position than the R7 CPUs did.

Not sure that memory frequency is the specific problem of why the cores are underutilised and certainly not for the SMT bug either. In Kitguru's game benches the Intel systems were running with the same 3200Mhz as the Ryzens.

You're going to have to provide sources for that - not just that one 'golden sample' CPU managed to achieve it.
Everything I've seen suggests that even 4GHz on all cores is a challenge for most of these CPUs.
Even AMD's own demo crashed when they tried to show an 1800X at 4.1GHz on all cores using watercooling.

No that's not accurate. I just opened 4 random reviews of Ryzen and in each one they managed 4.1Ghz stable.

Using a Noctua NH-D15S equipped with a single fan and overclocking by using the BIOS, we managed an all-core, stable speed of 4.1GHz.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/102964-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-14nm-zen/?page=11

Based on our testing, in addition to other reports that we are hearing, around 4.1GHz should be considered quite a good overclock for a Ryzen 7 1800X CPU while limiting the voltage to 1.45V. Dropping down to 1.40V may force you to back off by around 100MHz to 4.0-4.05GHz. 4GHz on all eight cores with SMT enabled should be comfortable for many Ryzen 7 1800X CPUs.

There are suggestions that 4.2GHz should be achievable using 1.45V, though neither of the chips that we received were able to hit such levels. AMD also suggests keeping voltage below 1.45V (more towards 1.40V for long-term, 24/7 usage) in order to enhance processor longevity.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-review/3/

By increasing the CPU voltage up to 1.46V from the ‘auto' setting on our board of 1.34V we managed to get up to 4.1GHz on all cores.

This took our multi-threaded CPU up to 1814 points and took our single-threaded performance right back to where we were straight out of the box since 4.1 GHz is the top clock speed by default with Turbo Boost and XFR. Running 4.2GHz was possible on our system, but it wasn't stable in long video encoding benchmarks

http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-and-1700-processor-review_191753/14

Overclocking 8-cores on a high clock frequency is a tough job, but can be managed relatively easily from the BIOS. You can also use AMD's software tool of course. The Ryzen 7 1800X has a base clock of 3.6 GHz and a boost frequency of 4.0 GHz. During our measurements by trial and error we found that at 1.375~1.425 Volts you will end up at roughly 4.1~4.2 GHz (that is on all eight cores!). And yes, that is not a lot over the default Turbo, but again this is 8-cores!

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1700x_review,24.html

 

[Datschge]

That didn't change what I said lol

100-200Mhz over turbo clock... that is it with air.

I don't understand what are you defending...

Turbo frequency is for a single core, and that's 3.75GHz for 1700 if including XFR. The all core turbo frequency is definitely lower, The Stilt guesses only 3.05GHz: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-10#post-38776743 I think it should be higher, more like around 3.25GHz, but I haven't seen any confirmation either way.
In any case OC disables turbo frequencies (i.e. per core boost) as well as XFR anyway, so the OC is essentially the new base frequency. And for 1700 an all core frequency of 3.7, 3.8 or even 3.9GHz is vastly above stock all core frequency even in turbo.

 

[Nydus]

Turbo frequency is for a single core, and that's 3.75GHz for 1700 if including XFR. The all core turbo frequency is definitely lower, The Stilt guesses only 3.05GHz: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-10#post-38776743 I think it should be higher, more like around 3.25GHz, but I haven't seen any confirmation either way.
In any case OC disables turbo frequencies (i.e. per core boost) as well as XFR anyway, so the OC is essentially the new base frequency. And for 1700 an all core frequency of 3.7, 3.8 or even 3.9GHz is vastly above stock all core frequency even in turbo.

Wait what?? Till now i thought i could get a 1700, slam an aio on it and oc it to ~3,9ghz on ALL cores. So now your telling me even that isnt possible? I told myself to go for the underdog this gen and treat myself to a nice 8core, even if it isnt as fast as a 7700k in games. But with a pitiful oc like that im kinda hesitant now

 

[Datschge]

Wait what?? Till now i thought i could get a 1700, slam an aio on it and oc it to ~3,9ghz on ALL cores. So now your telling me even that isnt possible? I told myself to go for the underdog this gen and treat myself to a nice 8core, even if it isnt as fast as a 7700k in games. But with a pitiful oc like that im kinda hesitant now

Of course you can OC all you want. I was talking about turbo frequency that a non-OC stock Ryzen uses, that's only per core while the all core turbo frequency is lower.

 

[Hazaro]

I'm still unsure where/if to slot the R7 stuff into for the PC thread. It is mainly for gaming performance and value.
Maybe just the 1700 as an OC part with one of the cheaper boards? And a 1800X part with a good board for a multitasking machine?

The R5/R3 stuff I can see throwing everywhere on the low-mid end without issue.

 

[shark sandwich]

Is there much benefit in gaming for having all cores OC'ed as opposed to just having one hit max speed?

From what I have seen, in gaming scenarios, only one core gets pushed close to the limit. So it would stand to reason that that core's speed would be the bottleneck, to the extent that performance is CPU-limited at all.

Are there any good articles or benchmarks that explore this?

 

[Datschge]

I'm still unsure where/if to slot the R7 stuff into for the PC thread. It is mainly for gaming performance and value.
Maybe just the 1700 as an OC part with one of the cheaper boards? And a 1800X part with a good board for a multitasking machine?

For now I'd only suggest hi-end Ryzen for productivity with gaming as a bonus. Once Windows 10 is actually capable of accurate SMT scheduling like Windows 7 already does, BIOS support is stabilizing and 99th percentile may turn out to be more generally advantageous for hi-end Ryzen vs 7700k then it may be a good pick for pure gaming, though at that point R5 may already be out and be of far better value.

For development use 1700X may be a steal right away if we take the bench by STH:
https://www.servethehome.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-linux-benchmarks/

Here is the cool part for those programmers reading, 8 core/ 16 thread Ryzen 7 1700X is equivalent to $730-$770/ month of AWS compute using the c4.4xlarge and c4.8xlarge instances as guideposts.

 

[brain_stew]

I'm still unsure where/if to slot the R7 stuff into for the PC thread. It is mainly for gaming performance and value.
Maybe just the 1700 as an OC part with one of the cheaper boards? And a 1800X part with a good board for a multitasking machine?

The R5/R3 stuff I can see throwing everywhere on the low-mid end without issue.

Honestly, it feels like too immature a platform to give any firm recommendations at this point, the R5/R3 are going to be the gaming focused chips.

I'd leave out the 1800x entirely, you're paying an extra $170 for something that can be achieved by spending 5 minutes in the UEFI. I'd wait on more B350 motherboard reviews until a reliable ~$100 clocker emerges, at that point the 1700 serves a very particular niche very well at a great price point. All initial reviews were focused on the very high end boards so there's not too much hands on experience with the B350 boards yet.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I'm still unsure where/if to slot the R7 stuff into for the PC thread. It is mainly for gaming performance and value.
Maybe just the 1700 as an OC part with one of the cheaper boards? And a 1800X part with a good board for a multitasking machine?

The R5/R3 stuff I can see throwing everywhere on the low-mid end without issue.

If you guys hadn't removed the HEDT Smokey builds from the PC thread, Ryzen would have gone alongside the HEDT builds as it is very similar but for a much lower price.

The PC thread has been purely gaming focused for awhile now though so I don't really know if R7 has a place until HEDT is brought back on the high-end.

 

[SRG01]

For development use 1700X may be a steal right away if we take the bench by STH:
https://www.servethehome.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-linux-benchmarks/

Oh wow, I never thought of it that way. When are dual-socket Ryzens available? 2H?

 

[Hazaro]

Yeah since the thread is mainly focused on frametime/$, and has been for a long time, that was my concern. But Ryzen shouldn't be left out imo. It just... needs those R5 chips and a note for multitasking/production use people to go R7. I think. Maybe we put back a production/workstation system in there.

*Yeah I'd put the cap at 1.35V also personally based off the Intel stuff and 14nm. Everyone likes to post, like, Pi stable numbers, but should just 24/7 at 3.8Ghz clock and be done with it.

Honestly, it feels like too immature a platform to give any firm recommendations at this point, the R5/R3 are going to be the gaming focused chips.

I'd leave out the 1800x entirely, you're paying an extra $170 for something that can be achieved by spending 5 minutes in the UEFI. I'd wait on more B350 motherboard reviews until a reliable ~$100 clocker emerges, at that point the 1700 serves a very particular niche very well at a great price point. All initial reviews were focused on the very high end boards so there's not too much hands on experience with the B350 boards yet.

After rechecking the pricing and turbos, yeah I'd leave the 1800X out for the cost.
The main issue is the builds would have to be a lot more personalized.
As B350 seem to lack SLI/XFire, you'd really want a 1700 to OC it. So that's two things off the bat already to add additional questions for people who are building. Some of the B350 don't even have enough rear USB ports to even suggest right now.

Then you get a pure gaming split of 7600K vs R7 1700 and picking between those.
Or do you ask people how long they might keep the machine and say get a 1700 and just OC it as future games will be more parallel (old debate, not a fan of suggesting more cores still).

 

[Paragon]

Not sure that memory frequency is the specific problem of why the cores are underutilised and certainly not for the SMT bug either. In Kitguru's game benches the Intel systems were running with the same 3200Mhz as the Ryzens.
No that's not accurate. I just opened 4 random reviews of Ryzen and in each one they managed 4.1Ghz stable.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/102964-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-14nm-zen/?page=11
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu-review/3/
http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x-and-1700-processor-review_191753/14
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1700x_review,24.html

AMD say that 1.35V is the maximum safe limit for these CPUs.
None of those are sustainable overclocks.

 

[Nydus]

Of course you can OC all you want. I was talking about turbo frequency that a non-OC stock Ryzen uses, that's only per core while the all core turbo frequency is lower.

Ohhhhhh ok. So i missunderstood? I can oc a r1700 the normal way like i think?

 

[Profanity]

No that's not accurate. I just opened 4 random reviews of Ryzen and in each one they managed 4.1Ghz stable.

I would take this with a huge grain of salt, as reviewers usually get given specially binned chips that overclock exceedingly well.

 

[StaSeb]

Just finished my buld. There are still a few kinks to fix, but I have a stable Windows 10 Installation.

For anyone who uses the Gigabyte X370 Gaming 5 - why the fuck is my 1700X only ever running at 3,4Ghz? Where is the Turbo, where the XFR? Am using the F3 Bios and do not get any Overclocking-Options or any hint of Turbo/XFR-functionality at all. I did not want to OC before the BIOS matures but I feel that I am missing out on Power. Do I have to use the Ryzen Master software? The Easy-Tune-Suite also did not help me here. Very weird.

At least the EasyTune-WindowsApp allowed me to set my DDR-friequecy to 2933, even though CPU-Z does show a lower value. Confusing.

Also fan curves are a bitch. Opted of a silent case, 3 140mm-Noctua-ULN-casefans and the Noctua NH-D15 - and right out of the gate, the system was LOUD. Took a long time fiddling with fancurves.

And opening the Smart-Fan-Sofware in Windows promptly erases your fancurves from the BIOS. And it is lacking the feature to copy fancurves to other fans (possible in the BIOS, perfect for syncing my 2 CPU-fans).

On top of that my M.2-SSD does not feel that snappy, some unzip-processes take far too long imho. And why can I only format an access 2TB of my 3TB-HDD? And why is there a 500-MB Sys-Partition on it? How can I clean that (new!) drive and get my 3TB-data-partition?

Setting up a brandnew System after 6 or so years is tricky. And choosing a brand new platform makes it quite fiddly. I am tired now and will continue tomorrow. If anyone has some advice for me, I would be very grateful.

 

[Datschge]

Regarding how broken Windows 10's scheduler for SMT is compared to Windows 7 (very relevant for gaming I guess):
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-5#post-38773988

Same driver version, same everything else.
17.8% faster than Win 10

Hope Microsoft unbreaks this asap.

Ohhhhhh ok. So i missunderstood? I can oc a r1700 the normal way like i think?

Yes. My response was just about ethomaz equating stock turbo speed with OC speed which is wrong as stock turbo speed is per core, OC speed is for all cores, always. And since you want the latter...

 

[Paragon]

For anyone who uses the Gigabyte X370 Gaming 5 - why the fuck is my 1700X only ever running at 3,4Ghz? Where is the Turbo, where the XFR?

Apparently you're supposed to set Windows to the high performance power plan, so try that if you haven't already.
Additionally, unless you're overclocking, the all-core turbo for the 1700X is 3.5GHz. 3.9GHz is the single-core XFR Turbo.

At least the EasyTune-WindowsApp allowed me to set my DDR-friequecy to 2933, even though CPU-Z does show a lower value. Confusing.

Since it's double data rate memory, the true frequency seen in CPU-Z is half of its rating.

On top of that my M.2-SSD does not feel that snappy, some unzip-processes take far too long imho.

Unzipping is mostly a CPU-bound operation, not a disk-speed operation.
7-zip is free and should offer better performance if you're just using Windows to handle that. WinRAR can be faster, but is a paid application.

And why can I only format an access 2TB of my 3TB-HDD? And why is there a 500-MB Sys-Partition on it? How can I clean that (new!) drive and get my 3TB-data-partition?

That sounds like a legacy (non-UEFI) install of Windows. Your install media is outdated or may not have been created correctly if it's a USB drive.
Legacy installs use MBR partitioning which is limited to 2TB, while UEFI installs use GPT which supports disks up to 8 ZiB in size.
The system partition is a part of modern versions of Windows and is required.

EDIT: If you are not using Microsoft's tool to create install media, I can recommend using Rufus: https://rufus.akeo.ie/

 

[StaSeb]

Apparently you're supposed to set Windows to the high performance power plan, so try that if you haven't already.
Additionally, unless you're overclocking, the all-core turbo for the 1700X is 3.5GHz. 3.9GHz is the single-core XFR Turbo.

Hmm.... it did not seem to move away from 3,4 but well...

Since it's double data rate memory, the true frequency seen in CPU-Z is half of its rating.

CPU-Z showed 1067, but I did set my Corsair LPX 3000 to 2933 via the EasyTune-App. Maybe an error in CPU-Z. Hard to trust any telemetry right now.

That sounds like a legacy (non-UEFI) install of Windows. Your install media is outdated or may not have been created correctly if it's a USB drive.
Legacy installs use MBR partitioning which is limited to 2TB, while UEFI installs use GPT which supports disks up to 8 ZiB in size.
The system partition is a part of modern versions of Windows and is required.

Damn... an I did use Rufus.
Are there any tools that allow me to nuke that HDD and partition it cleanly? Or do I have to reinstall my Windows on the nvme-C:-Drive as well? No, right?

EDIT: If you are not using Microsoft's tool to create install media, I can recommend using Rufus: https://rufus.akeo.ie/

Thanks for your answers!

 

[·feist·]

ComputerBase tested Zen against Phenom II (alongside some Bulldozer revisions and similar vintage Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge)

Ryzen -vs- Phenom II -vs- Piledriver/+ (Bulldozer Gen2/2.5) & Steamroller (Bulldozer Gen3)


Phenom II X6 and AMD Ryzen 7 in comparison [ComputerBase]
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/benchmarks-phenom-ii-x6-ryzen-7-vergleich/




Totalrating Applications & Games (720p) ******* Totalrating Applications & Games (Full HD) ******* Total Applications (Windows)

Overall Rating Games (Full HD) ******* Overall Rating Games (720p) ******* SunSpider

Blender ******* 7-zip ******* Adobe Photoshop

3DParticle Movement Benchmark******* Cinebench R15 ******* DBpoweramp Music Converter

PCMark 8

Dolfyn ******* Dolphin CPU benchmark ******* Euler3d CFD Benchmark

FLAC Audio Encoding ******* Octopuses

OpenSSL ******* POV-ray ******* TrueCrypt

Handbrake ******* Power consumption

 

[Paragon]

Damn... an I did use Rufus.

I'm not familiar with any boards from Gigabyte that use UEFI, but in the ASUS UEFI the boot section lists the USB install drive twice - one using UEFI and the other without. (BIOS/legacy boot)
Make sure that you're selecting the UEFI option to boot from. Don't just let it automatically select one.

In Rufus there is also an option to select a partition scheme that should only boot from UEFI systems, and not one which supports both BIOS and UEFI - though that option may not be available depending on the disk image that you're using, and I would only use it if the above did not work.

Are there any tools that allow me to nuke that HDD and partition it cleanly? Or do I have to reinstall my Windows on the nvme-C:-Drive as well? No, right?

I believe you can convert the drive from MBR to GPT, but if you don't care about any data on it, then it's easier to just wipe the drive.
You should just be able to use Windows' disk manager to remove the old partition and format it as a GPT disk.

However you will not be able to use GPT disks (required for >2TB) if you have a legacy install of Windows.
You need to be running a UEFI version, which would require you to reinstall the OS.

I believe you can technically convert a legacy (BIOS) install to UEFI, but it's really not recommended to do so.
Here's a guide to check if you're running a UEFI or Legacy install: https://www.eightforums.com/tutorials/29504-bios-mode-see-if-windows-boot-uefi-legacy-mode.html

 

[Vipu]

ComputerBase tested Zen against Phenom II (alongside some Bulldozer revisions and similar vintage Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge)

Ryzen -vs- Phenom II -vs- Piledriver/+ (Bulldozer Gen2/2.5) & Steamroller (Bulldozer Gen3)


Phenom II X6 and AMD Ryzen 7 in comparison [ComputerBase]
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/benchmarks-phenom-ii-x6-ryzen-7-vergleich/




Totalrating Applications & Games (720p)

Totalrating Applications & Games (Full HD)

Total Applications (Windows)

Overall Rating Games (Full HD)

Overall Rating Games (720p)

Power consumption

3DParticle Movement Benchmark

7-zip

Adobe Photoshop

Blender

Cinebench R15

DBpoweramp Music Converter

Dolfyn

Dolphin CPU benchmark

Euler3d CFD Benchmark

FLAC Audio Encoding

Handbrake

Octopuses

OpenSSL

PCMark 8

POV-ray

SunSpider

TrueCrypt

Quoting just because why not!
But seriously, I cant make my mind do I want 1700 or 7700k
Im not in hurry really so I guess I can wait a bit what happens with Ryzens but I kinda want new pc fast anyway, in few months max maybe.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

.

Why did you make a post like this with 10 charts all in-lined so we have to scroll through them all to get past it?

 

[Paragon]

ComputerBase tested Zen against Phenom II (alongside some Bulldozer revisions and similar vintage Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge)
Ryzen -vs- Phenom II -vs- Piledriver/+ (Bulldozer Gen2/2.5) & Steamroller (Bulldozer Gen3)
Phenom II X6 and AMD Ryzen 7 in comparison [ComputerBase]
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/benchmarks-phenom-ii-x6-ryzen-7-vergleich/

<snip>

Oh come on! Embedding an entire review's worth of images and making the page 5x longer than it was before?

Quoting just because why not!

And then quoting them all?
&#8199;

Selecting one or two benchmarks to post and then including a link to the article is fine, but that's just ridiculous.
If you're going to do it - which I don't agree with - you should be posting cleanly formatted links like this:

• Totalrating Applications & Games (720p)
• Totalrating Applications & Games (Full HD)
• Total Applications (Windows)
• Overall Rating Games (Full HD)
• Overall Rating Games (720p)
• Power consumption (1)
• Power consumption (2)
• 3DParticle Movement Benchmark
• 7-zip
• Adobe Photoshop
• Blender
• Cinebench R15
• DBpoweramp Music Converter
• Dolfyn
• Dolphin CPU benchmark
• Euler3d CFD Benchmark
• FLAC Audio Encoding
• Handbrake
• Octopuses
• OpenSSL
• PCMark 8 (1)
• PCMark 8 (2)
• POV-ray
• SunSpider
• TrueCrypt

But even that is far too much, and one of the nice things about Computer Base's site is that all the charts are interactive.

EDIT:

Why did you make a post like this with 10 charts all in-lined so we have to scroll through them all to get past it?

And you just did that on purpose.

 

[pooptest]

I'm not familiar with any boards from Gigabyte that use UEFI, but in the ASUS UEFI the boot section lists the USB install drive twice - one using UEFI and the other without. (BIOS/legacy boot)
Make sure that you're selecting the UEFI option to boot from. Don't just let it automatically select one.

In Rufus there is also an option to select a partition scheme that should only boot from UEFI systems, and not one which supports both BIOS and UEFI - though that option may not be available depending on the disk image that you're using, and I would only use it if the above did not work.

I believe you can convert the drive from MBR to GPT, but if you don't care about any data on it, then it's easier to just wipe the drive.
You should just be able to use Windows' disk manager to remove the old partition and format it as a GPT disk.

However you will not be able to use GPT disks (required for >2TB) if you have a legacy install of Windows.
You need to be running a UEFI version, which would require you to reinstall the OS.

I believe you can technically convert a legacy (BIOS) install to UEFI, but it's really not recommended to do so.
Here's a guide to check if you're running a UEFI or Legacy install: https://www.eightforums.com/tutorials/29504-bios-mode-see-if-windows-boot-uefi-legacy-mode.html

Not getting this... are you saying you need UEFI to run GPT? Because I'm on Windows 7, legacy BIOS boot, and have a 5TB GPT drive and can see all of it perfectly fine.

Also, thanks @feist for posting those. Coming from a 1090T, I can't wait for the 1700X.

 

[Paragon]

Not getting this... are you saying you need UEFI to run GPT? Because I'm on Windows 7, legacy BIOS boot, and have a 5TB GPT drive and can see all of it perfectly fine.

I thought it was a system limitation, but it may only be a boot drive restriction.
You should not be using a legacy BIOS install of Windows unless that's all your system supports.

As I said, it's possible that the drive was just formatted as MBR and not GPT, and it's not a legacy install anyway.

 

[Steel]

Why did you make a post like this with 10 charts all in-lined so we have to scroll through them all to get past it?

Why the hell did you quote it?

 

[Insane Metal]

Those Computer Base benches make things look incredibly good for Ryzen. I mean, even if for games they aren't great, just ok, in apps and general purpose they do very well, considering their prices.

Good on you, AMD. Good on you.

 

[tuxfool]

I thought it was a system limitation, but it may only be a boot drive restriction.
You should not be using a legacy BIOS install of Windows unless that's all your system supports.

As I said, it's possible that the drive was just formatted as MBR and not GPT, and it's not a legacy install anyway.

You can't boot from GPT without UEFI. Once windows is running it is perfectly fine reading GPT as the driver takes over then. Other than that, if a drive doesn't have 512b sector emulation you can't boot it with an old BIOS.

 

[·feist·]

That post was intended as an at-a-glance, quick reference to be linked to in the OP.

It initially had the first two results only with the rest spoilered. GAF's spoilers don't support compression, so scroll length remained the same.

Nearly all my large image posts are ~3 across, in quotes tags for compression. I've edited the post to more closely resemble that layout.


For anyone who quoted me: Feel free to edit your posts.

 

[pooptest]

I thought it was a system limitation, but it may only be a boot drive restriction.
You should not be using a legacy BIOS install of Windows unless that's all your system supports.

As I said, it's possible that the drive was just formatted as MBR and not GPT, and it's not a legacy install anyway.

I thought you were referring to drives in general. Boot drives can't be GPT without UEFI, yes, but not sure who would use a >2TB drive as a boot drive anyway...

 

[kotodama]

ComputerBase tested Zen against Phenom II (alongside some Bulldozer revisions and similar vintage Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge)

Ryzen -vs- Phenom II -vs- Piledriver/+ (Bulldozer Gen2/2.5) & Steamroller (Bulldozer Gen3).....

Thanks for this. Ryzen in totality looks pretty great, especially coming from older Phenom and Bulldozer based systems.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Why the hell did you quote it?

Because...oh. I just realized that it quotes the whole thing. Let me fix that.

 

[NeOak]

Jesus, the charts are cancer on mobile. WTF dude.